Soap Opera Government

What a wonderful way to distract the public from the issues that really matter. Most likely a series of worthless congressional hearings followed by more new regulations.

If ever there was a real soap opera it’s the events now surrounding David Petraeus. Now involved is General John Allen, Congressman Eric Cantor, Paula Broadwell, Jill Kelly, unnamed FBI agent, Holly Petraeus, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and President Barack Obama.

The sequence of events as reported by blaze.com. This really could be made into a soap opera.

Spring 2012:

FBI starts investigation, intercepting Petraeus’ emails and reviewing older emails going back to his time in Afghanistan, where he was commander of U.S. Forces from July 2010 to July 2011 (Newsmax, Nov. 9).

Week of October 21:

Federal investigators interview Broadwell. (Reuters, Nov. 11).

Oct. 26:

Broadwell delivers speech at University of Denver, discussing details about how Petraeus handled the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and revealing possibly classified information about alleged Libyan militia members being held prisoner at that consulate and that situation may have been a potential catalyst for the attack (Fox News, Nov. 12).

Glenn Beck predicts that David Petraeus would take the blame on Libya: “Who have they tried to sell down the river every step of the way? The intelligence,” Glenn said. “You watch. Petraeus is going to be the fall guy. They’re going to have him step down. They’re going to point all fingers to him.” (TheBlaze TV, Oct. 26)

Week of October 28:

Federal investigators interview Petraeus. Prosecutors conclude afterward they likely will not bring criminal charges. (Reuters, Nov. 11)

Oct. 31:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office contacts FBI to inform them about information from an FBI whistle blower who told Cantor (R-Va.) in late October that Petraeus had been involved in an extramarital affair and was potentially putting national security at risk (New York Times, Nov. 10, 2012).

Nov. 6 (Election Day):

At about 5 p.m.: the FBI notifies Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who oversees the CIA and other intelligence agencies, about Petraeus. Clapper speaks to Petraeus that evening and again Wednesday and advises him to step down (Reuters, Nov. 11).

Nov. 7:

Clapper informs White House National Security Council official that Petraeus may resign and President Barack Obama should be informed. The president is told about it later that day (Reuters, Nov. 11).

Nov. 8:

At 11 a.m. A Petraeus meeting with foreign dignitaries scheduled for 2:30 p.m. is canceled and his visitors are informed he has to go to the White House to meet with Obama. Petraeus meets with Obama at the White House and offers his resignation, explaining the circumstances behind it. Obama did not immediately accept the resignation (Reuters, Nov. 11).

Nov. 9:

In a statement to CIA employees Friday, Petraeus said he submitted his resignation to President Barack Obama on Thursday and Obama accepted it Friday afternoon (CIA).

Fox News reported the affair was with his biographer and was discovered during the course of an FBI investigation on an “unrelated and much broader case.” According to Fox, journalist and biographer Paula Broadwell’s name came up during the investigation, which led to uncovering the affair (Fox News, Nov. 9).

Fox News analyst Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, speculates that Obama administration knew of the affair and waited for the right moment to “play the card” (Fox News, Nov. 9)

Nov. 11:

A senior U.S. military official says Broadwell sent harassing emails to a woman who was the State Department’s liaison to the military’s Joint Special Operations Command. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, says 37-year-old Jill Kelley in Tampa, Fla., received the emails from Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell that triggered an FBI investigation. (TheBlaze/AP).

Nov. 13:

To be continued. Tune into to your local newspaper, favorite web site, or television station for the latest episode.

Joseph Stiglitz: “Romney’s plan is based on magic”

Joseph Stiglitz has a decent résumé. He won the Nobel Prize in economics and served as chairman of Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers before being named chief economist of the World Bank.

Since the election of Barack Obama, Stiglitz has also been something of a thorn in the side of the current administration, consistently critiquing the White House for falling short.

Stiglitz gave an interview to salon.com on his appraisal of the Romney economic plan. Here is a summary of that interview. It’s somewhat long but worth your time.

What’s at stake in this election for the U.S. economy?

Quite a lot. First, there’s what we call the macro-economy. The budget cuts that Romney/Ryan propose will certainly slow growth. If the European downturn continues that could tip us into a recession. The cuts certainly won’t provide the kind of stimulus that Obama’s jobs bill, for instance, pushes. Romney’s plan is based on magic: Just because he gets elected, the economy is supposed to take off. There is no evidence that anything like that would happen. Quite the contrary — I think the opposite would happen. The business community would see the cutbacks coming and that would itself cause a slowdown in the economy.

You’ve made the negative case for how the economy will suffer if Romney is elected. Is there a positive case to be made for Obama? You’ve been one of the people on the left most critical of Obama’s efforts on the economy. Why should progressives vote for him now?

I think the main reason, quite honestly, to vote for him is that if he loses there could be a major step backward in every aspect. Not the least important of which is the importance of the Supreme Court, which would affect inequality of political power, as with the Citizens United case. The Court will also rule on basic human rights, gender rights, discrimination, things I think progressives should care a lot about.

But in terms of the economy, while I’ve been critical, there still has been progress in an awful lot of areas. Less progress than there should have been, less progress than was promised, but progress all the same.

Where do you see that progress?

Healthcare. Access to healthcare for everybody is an important step.

I was about to ask, what have been your biggest disappointments?

Housing policy has been a big disappointment. But compared to Bush, who didn’t do anything, and the Republicans, who haven’t proposed anything — Romney has been totally silent on the issue — at least Obama did something. So I am disappointed …

Looking ahead, are there things Obama could do that would represent a real step forward, rather than just consolidate what has already been achieved, or simply prevent going backward?

There aren’t many magic bullets, but let me talk about a couple things. Obviously, more progressive taxation — getting rid of the distortionary provisions in corporate welfare, special treatment of capital gains, carried interest — would make our economy more efficient and less unequal.

One of the biggest areas of progressive disappointment with respect to Obama has to do with banking policy. Do you see any chance of improvement there?

We face a choice between someone who is viewed as being too close to the financial industry and somebody who is in the financial industry. Of the two I’d rather have someone who is close but not init. So to me, there’s just not much choice.

G.O.P. Wants to Control Women

Muslims are known for their mis-treatment of women. They are treated as second class citizens. If you have never seen the movie “Not Without My Daughter” you should watch it. It tells of the treatment of women in a Muslim country. Most of us in America are shocked by the depictions of life in Iran. And yet, many Americans want to treat their wives and daughters as if they have no right to make decisions for themselves.

The orthodox of most religions in the United States still want to tell the women in their lives what to do and when to do it. The men can have sex but the women can not. If they get pregnant they must bare the child no matter how it was conceived. Both Tod Akin, Republican candidate for the Senate in Missouri and Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock have taken the position that women have natural protection against rape or if they were rapped the child must be born.

Is this the view of the Republican Party? Read their platform. Buried in the writing are these gems that lead to the same conclusions as Akin and Mourdock have made.

This is enough for me to oppose Republicans for office.

Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.

We call on the government to permanently ban all federal funding and subsidies for abortion and healthcare plans that include abortion coverage.

We likewise support the right of parents to consent to medical treatment for their children, including mental health treatment, drug treatment, and treatment involving pregnancy, contraceptives and abortion. We urge enactment of pending legislation that would require parental consent to transport girls across state lines for abortions.

We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception. We support keeping federal funds from being used in mandatory or universal mental health, psychiatric, or socio- emotional screening programs.

You are the 47 Percent

By Joel Mathis in the Los Angeles Daily News, September 23, 2012

Are you married? Have a job? How about a kid or two? Did you get a tax refund last year because your status as a working parent made you eligible for an Earned Income Tax Credit?

Congratulations: Mitt Romney thinks you’re a welfare-addicted bum.

See, when Romney talks about that 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, he’s talking about you.

You may not think that’s true, because of course you pay plenty of taxes – there’s the payroll tax that comes out of your check every week, the fee that goes to pay for Social Security. And of course, the world is a maze of taxes for you: Every time you fill up the gas tank or buy a birthday gift for the kid, the price is a little higher because of the extra few cents that goes to the state or local governments.

Surely Romney’s talking about somebody else?

Somebody who sits at home and waits for a government check they didn’t earn?

Nope. He’s talking about you.

See, to get to that 47 percent number, Romney has to include folks who actually work but didn’t officially pay income taxes because they didn’t earn enough, or because they qualified for the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Nearly two-thirds of Romney’s laggardly 47 percent paid payroll taxes.

And to state the obvious: You generally have to be on a payroll to pay the payroll taxes. You have to have a job.

Now: Romney obviously wasn’t taking you into account when he said that 47 percent is “dependent on government” and “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

Which is the problem: Romney wasn’t taking you into account. He and the rest of the Republican Party have been so solicitous of so-called ‘job creators” that they’ve treated job doers rather shabbily. It’s something to think about when you vote in November.

Freedom of Speech

Anti-jihad ‘savage’ ads going up in NYC subway NEW YORK (AP) — A provocative ad that equates Muslim radicals with savages is set to go up in the city’s subway system as violent protests over an anti-Islamic film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad sweep over much of the Muslim world.

“Innocence of Muslims” is the Muhammad movie that was the excuse for riots throughout the Muslim world. Google was asked to remove the movie clip from Youtube but they refused, sighting their first amendment rights.

The American constitution’s first Amendment says

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Americans of all stripes hold those words as important as any in the bible. We go to war to defend the freedoms we have. Many elsewhere do not agree with this belief. They believe that the United States has a responsibility to muzzle words or actions they consider disrespectful.

It’s a conflict of beliefs that could lead to a breakdown of relations with other nations.

I believe Americans really take these words in our Declaration of Independence to heart

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I believe Americans will fight, if necessary, to defend the American ideals. Thanks, Thomas Jefferson.

The Real Mitt Romney

Wow!

Mother Jones magazine obtained this video clip. It tells what Mitt Romney thinks about 47% of us.

Responding to a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: “[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

How stupid can this man be?

As reported by the Associated Press;

According to the TaxPolicyCenter study, 38 million — half of those who owe no federal income taxes — escape owing money to the IRS because their income is too low. For them, merely using the standard deduction, personal exemptions and other basic parts of the tax code allow them to avoid income taxes.

Overall, 93 percent of those who owe no federal income taxes earn $50,000 annually or less. But 5 percent of them earn $50,000 to $100,000 and the rest — around 430,000 nonpayers — earn more than $100,000 annually. That includes 4,000 households earning more than $1 million a year, thanks largely to tax exempt interest, reduced rates on capital gains and dividends and other deductions.

This entire event is not going to derail the Romney campaign. Obama made his remarks about some people clinging to their guns in 2008 and it made little impact on his win – but we all know what he really believes and that comment will have an impact on this election.

The question is: what does Romney stand for and what would he do as president? Unless he can provide convincing answers his chances to win the election are considerably diminished.